Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Prognostication in Gastroesophageal Cancer: Results of a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) are self-reflections of an individual's physical functioning and emotional well-being. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a simple and validated PRO tool of 10 common symptoms and a patient-reported functional status (PRFS) measure. The prognostic value of this tool is unknown in patients with gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). In this study, we examined the association between the ESAS score and overall survival (OS) in patients with GEC, the prognostication difference between ESAS and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and assessed the correlation between PRFS and the physician-reported ECOG performance status (PS). METHODS: The study was a retrospective cohort study of 211 patients with GEC with localized (stages I-III) and metastatic disease who completed at least one baseline ESAS prior to treatment. Patients were grouped into 3 cohorts based on ESAS score. OS was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the concordance index (c-index) was calculated for ESAS and physician-reported ECOG. The agreement between PRFS and physician-ECOG was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 211 patients were included. The median age was 60.8 years; 90% of patients were ECOG PS 0-1; 38% of patients were stages I-III, while 62% were de novo metastatic patients. Median OS in low, moderate, high symptom burden (SB) patients' cohorts was 19.17 m, 16.39 mm, and 12.68 m, respectively (P < .04). The ability to predict death was similar between physician-ECOG and ESAS (c-index 0.56 and 0.5753, respectively) and PRFS and physician-ECOG (c-index of 0.5615 and 0.5545, respectively). The PS agreement between patients and physicians was 50% with a weighted Kappa of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.17-0.38). CONCLUSION: Patient's SB seems to carry a prognostic significance. ESAS and physician-reported ECOG exhibit comparable prognostic values. Physicians and patients can frequently have divergent opinions on PS. ESAS takes a patient-centered approach and should be encouraged in practice among patients with GEC as an additional tool for prognostication.

Comparison of Four Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Advanced Gastric and Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic scores that can identify patients at risk for early death are needed to aid treatment decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials. We compared the accuracy of four scores to predict early death (within 90 days) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer. METHODS: Advanced GE cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy were included. Prognostic risks were calculated using: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm-Score), and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) scores. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations between prognostic scores and OS. The predictive discrimination was estimated using Harrell's c-index. Predictive ability for early death was measured using time-dependent AUCs. RESULTS: In total, 451 patients with metastatic GE cancer were included. High risk patients had shorter OS for all scores (RMH high- vs. low-risk median OS 7.9 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001; MDACC 6.8 vs. 11.9 months P < .001; GRIm-Score 5.3 vs. 13 months, P < .001; MDA-ICI 8.2 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS. The GRIm-Score had the highest predictive discrimination and predictive ability for early death. CONCLUSIONS: The GRIm-Score had the highest accuracy in predicting early death and OS. Clinicians may use this score to identify patients at higher risk of early death to guide treatment decisions including clinical trial enrolment. This score could also be used as a stratification factor in future clinical trial designs.

Endotracheal Tube Obstruction Experienced during an Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

During anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), endotracheal tube difficulties are anticipated at the operative level but are unexpected elsewhere in the airway. We report the case of a 66-year-old woman who underwent C4/C5 ACDF to treat adjacent segment disease following a previous anterior cervical fixation surgery. Shortly after her lower jaw was elevated and the fusion cage was inserted, a rise in airway pressure was observed, indicating impaired breathing. Subsequent examination revealed a bent endotracheal tube in the oral cavity as the cause of the respiratory impairment. During anterior cervical surgery, elevating the lower jaw can cause the tongue root to press against the endotracheal tube. Reinforced endotracheal tubes, with a spiral-wound wire in the inner wall, would effectively prevent this issue. In the unlikely event of impaired breathing during such an operation, the oral cavity should be inspected for confirmation of an open airway.

Respiratory characteristics and related intraoperative ventilatory management for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

A substantial proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) develop severe respiratory failure. Although the exact pathophysiology of severe COVID-19 pneumonia remains unknown and the characteristics of these patients are heterogeneous, the acute respiratory failure often fulfills criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the clinical characteristics are also consistent with what is previously known about ARDS. Cohort studies also report distinctively high association between perioperative COVID-19 and postoperative mortality. In this special article, we review several publications on the pathophysiology of COVID-19, and discuss intraoperative ventilatory management for patients with COVID-19 based on the respiratory characteristics of COVID-19 pneumonia in light of the ongoing controversy of clinical phenotypes.

Assessment of Therapeutic Interventions and Lung Protective Ventilation in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: A number of interventions are available to manage patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the associations of currently available ventilatory strategies and adjunctive therapies with mortality are uncertain. Objectives: To compare and rank different therapeutic strategies to identify the best intervention associated with a reduction in mortality in adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Data Sources: An electronic search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs Ahead of Print, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register (Central), PubMed, and CINAHL was conducted, from database inception to May 29, 2019. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of interventions for adults with moderate to severe ARDS that used lung protective ventilation. No language restrictions were applied. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers and synthesized with Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Barotrauma was a secondary outcome. Results: Among 25 randomized clinical trials evaluating 9 interventions, 2686 of 7743 patients (34.6%) died within 28 days. Compared with lung protective ventilation alone, prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with significantly lower 28-day mortality (prone positioning: risk ratio, 0.69; 95% credible interval, 0.48-0.99; low quality of evidence; venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: risk ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.38-0.93; moderate quality of evidence). These 2 interventions had the highest ranking probabilities, although they were not significantly different from each other. Among 18 trials reporting on barotrauma, 448 of 6258 patients (7.2%) experienced this secondary outcome. No intervention was superior to any other in reducing barotrauma, and each represented low to very low quality of evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: This network meta-analysis supports the use of prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in addition to lung protective ventilation in patients with ARDS. Moreover, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered as an early strategy for adults with severe ARDS receiving lung protective ventilation.

Effect of Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist on Patient-Ventilator Interaction in Mechanically Ventilated Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is common among critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and has been associated with adverse outcomes. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist is a ventilatory mode that may lead to improved patient-ventilator synchrony. We conducted a systematic review to determine the impact of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist on patient-ventilator asynchrony, other physiologic variables, and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in comparison with conventional pneumatically triggered ventilatory modes. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, conference abstracts, and ClinicalTrials.gov until July 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (including crossover design) comparing the occurrence of patient-ventilator asynchrony between neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and pressure support ventilation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. The asynchrony index and severe asynchrony (i.e., asynchrony index > 10%) were the primary outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcomes and assessed risk of bias of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 11,139 unique citations, 26 studies (522 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen trials were included in the meta-analysis using random effects models through the generic inverse variance method. In several different clinical scenarios, the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist was associated with significantly reduced asynchrony index (mean difference, -8.12; 95% CI, -11.61 to -4.63; very low quality of evidence) and severe asynchrony (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.76; moderate quality of evidence) as compared with pressure support ventilation. Furthermore, other measurements of asynchrony were consistently improved during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. CONCLUSIONS: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient-ventilator synchrony; however, its effects on clinical outcomes remain uncertain. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether the physiologic efficiency of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist affects patient-important outcomes in critically ill adults.

The future of driving pressure: a primary goal for mechanical ventilation?

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains supportive with lung protective mechanical ventilation. In this article, we discuss the physiological concept of driving pressure, current data, ongoing trials, and future directions needed to clarify the role of driving pressure in patients with ARDS. BODY: Driving pressure is the plateau airway pressure minus PEEP. It can also be expressed as the ratio of tidal volume to respiratory system compliance, indicating the decreased functional size of the lung observed in patients with ARDS (i.e., baby lung). Driving pressure as a strong predictor of mortality in patients with ARDS is supported by a post hoc analysis of previous randomized controlled trials and a subsequent meta-analysis. Importantly, the meta-analysis suggested targeting driving pressure below 13-15 cmH2O. Ongoing clinical trials of driving pressure in patients with ARDS focus mainly on physiological rather than clinical outcome but will provide important insights for the design of future clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Currently, no definite clinical recommendations on the routine use of driving pressure in patients with ARDS can be made, as the available data are hypothesis-generating. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of a driving pressure-based ventilation strategy.

Association of Driving Pressure With Mortality Among Ventilated Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A recent post hoc analysis suggested that driving pressure may be more important than traditional ventilatory variables in determining outcome in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the risk of mortality for higher versus lower driving pressure. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to February 10, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, reporting driving pressure and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Seven studies including five secondary analysis of previous randomized controlled trials and two observational studies (6,062 patients) were eligible for study. All studies were judged as having a low risk of bias. Median (interquartile range) driving pressure between higher and lower driving pressure groups was 15 cm H2O (14-16 cm H2O). Median (interquartile range) mortality of all included studies was 34% (32-38%). DATA SYNTHESIS: In the meta-analyses of four studies (3,252 patients), higher driving pressure was associated with a significantly higher mortality (pooled risk ratio, 1.44; 95% [CI], 1.11-1.88; I = 85%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to the three studies with similar driving pressure cutoffs (13-15 cm H2O) demonstrated similar results (pooled risk ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43; I = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed an association between higher driving pressure and higher mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. These findings suggest a possible range of driving pressure to be evaluated in clinical trials. Future research is needed to ascertain the benefit of ventilatory strategies targeting driving pressure in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.